How Many Valid Days Are Necessary to Assess Physical Activity Data From Accelerometry During Pregnancy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors examined whether or not ≤3 days wearing Actical® accelerometers provided acceptable results in comparison with the recommendation of ≥4 days in women across gestation. METHODS: A total of 26, 76, and 57 participants at early, mid, and late pregnancy, respectively, were assessed. Participants were instructed to wear the device for 7 days and women who wore it for ≥4 days were included. For each participant, 3, 2, and 1 day(s) were randomly selected. Paired comparisons, intraclass correlations coefficients, and kappa statistics were performed for ≥4 days (criterion) versus 3, 2, and 1 day(s). Averages (in minutes per day) of sedentary time, light, moderate, vigorous, moderate to vigorous physical activity (PA) and steps per day were examined. RESULTS: When 3 valid days were compared with the criterion, no significant differences were found for any gestational period. The intraclass correlations coefficients were "high" for all PA-related variables. The k values varied from .819 to .838 across pregnancy ("strong"). Two and 1 valid day(s) versus the criterion showed significant differences in some PA intensities, reduced intraclass correlations coefficients, "moderate" k values for 2 valid days (.638-.788) and "minimal-to-moderate" k values for 1 valid day (.367-.755). CONCLUSION: In pregnant women during early, mid, and late pregnancy, PA data obtained from 3 valid days of wear was equivalent and agreed with ≥4 valid days.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".